Summary
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's quashing of two CBI corruption cases against Central Government employees for offences in Kurnool and Ananthapur districts that were registered and charge-sheeted in Hyderabad after the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh. Under the Circular Memo dated 26.05.2014 issued under Section 3 of the A.P. Reorganisation Act, pre-bifurcation orders, including the general consent to the CBI and the notification empowering the CBI Court at Hyderabad, continued in force in both new States until altered; and in any event no State consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act was needed to investigate Central Government employees for an offence under a Central Act.
Issues
- Whether, after the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh on 02.06.2014, the CBI at Hyderabad could register and investigate PC Act offences committed in districts remaining in Andhra Pradesh without fresh consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act.
- Whether the Court of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad retained jurisdiction as a Special Court under the PC Act over those districts after bifurcation in the absence of a fresh notification.
- Whether State consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act is required for the CBI to register a case against Central Government employees for an offence under the PC Act, a Central Act.
Provisions considered
- Section 3 and Section 2(f), as reflected in Circular Memo No.13665/SR/2014 dated 26.05.2014, Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014Relying on the definition of 'law' (including orders, notifications and other instruments in force before the appointed day) and the circular's statement that all laws applicable to the undivided State on 01.06.2014 continue in both new States until altered, repealed or amended, the Court held that pre-bifurcation government orders continued to operate in Telangana as well, following Swarn Rekha Cokes and Coals on the Bihar reorganisation. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22)
- Sections 5 and 6, Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946The general consent of 14.05.1990 for the entire undivided State, as extended by later orders, was held to continue, and its terms did not exclude Central Government employees from investigation. Independently, following Kanwal Tanuj and Fertico Marketing, State consent was not needed to investigate Central Government employees for an offence under a Central Act. (¶¶ 5, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 29)
- Sections 3 and 4, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Since only a Special Judge designated by notification may try PC Act cases, the Court held that the pre-bifurcation notification empowering the CBI Court at Hyderabad over the four Rayalaseema districts continued after 02.06.2014, so the High Court erred in finding no notification conferring Special Court status. (¶¶ 13, 14, 18, 21, 22)
- Section 7, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988The offence alleged in both FIRs, demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by Central Government or Central undertaking employees. (¶¶ 2, 3, 24, 25)
Held
- Reorganisation statutes must be construed in light of the unusual situation created by the formation of a new State; under the Circular Memo dated 26.05.2014 and the wide definition of 'law', orders, notifications and instruments in force in the undivided State before 02.06.2014 continued to apply in both Andhra Pradesh and Telangana until altered, repealed or amended. The High Court was wrong to treat them as confined to Andhra Pradesh. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 21, 22)
- Reading the orders otherwise would create a vacuum allowing offences to be committed with impunity and would defeat the purpose of the PC Act and of the government orders given the status of law by the circular. (¶ 21)
- The general consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act granted for the undivided State, and continued by later orders, cannot be read as placing Central Government or Central undertaking employees beyond the reach of the CBI merely because it refers to private persons acting with such employees. (¶¶ 20, 21)
- The notification empowering the CBI Court at Hyderabad to try PC Act cases arising from the Rayalaseema districts continued in force after bifurcation; the High Court erred in holding that there was no notification conferring Special Court status under Section 4 of the PC Act. (¶¶ 18, 21, 22)
- Independently, where Central Government employees are alleged to have committed an offence under a Central Act such as the PC Act, the fact that they work within a particular State does not make that State's consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act necessary for the CBI to register and investigate the case, in light of Kanwal Tanuj and Fertico Marketing and the 1963 resolution establishing the CBI. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)
Result
Appeals allowed; the High Court's common judgment dated 13.04.2023 set aside; CC Nos. 13 of 2022 and 15 of 2022 restored to the file of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Kurnool, to proceed against the respective first respondents in accordance with law.